唯識三十頌 偈二十一 依他起·圓成實
繩非蛇，卻也不是無；而真實，就在這條繩上。
上一首判遍計所執「都無所有」，恐人落空。這一首立後二性穩穩接住——
依他起：「分別緣所生」。《成唯識論》說「託緣生，此性非無」——識自變的見相二分等，靠虛妄分別之緣生起，緣生而有，不能說無。三性的尺度由此分清：遍計唯無、依他非無。像把繩錯看成蛇——蛇全無（遍計），繩卻是緣生實事（依他），破蛇不撥繩。
圓成實：「於彼，常遠離前性」。它不在別處，「此即於彼依他起上，常遠離前遍計所執，二空所顯真如為性」——就在依他這條繩上，遠離了所執的蛇，我空法空所顯的真如即圓成。論主拈「於彼」「常遠離」：於彼顯圓成與依他「不即不離」、常遠離顯遍計「理恒非有」。一不離、一永離，三性結構立穩：依他為所依、遍計為所離、圓成為所顯。
古德另有一道與偈十七同源的深岔（只並陳不判）：見相二分算依他還是遍計？安慧判二分「情有理無」屬遍計，護法判二分「從緣生故亦依他起」——『一分／四分』之諍再現，玄奘所傳以護法為正。共許一句：破境破的是蛇，不是繩，更不是繩上本來如是的真實。下一首：圓成與依他，是一還是異？
The rope is not a snake, yet neither is it nothing; and the real is right upon this rope.
The last verse judged the wholly-imagined "utterly non-existent," lest one fear emptiness. This verse establishes the latter two natures to catch what should hold. The other-dependent: "born of discrimination-conditions." The CWL says "arising upon conditions, this nature not absent" — the seeing-and-image parts consciousness transforms-into arise by false-discrimination conditions, condition-born and existent, not to be called absent. So the measure of the three natures is clear: the wholly-imagined only absent, the other-dependent not absent. As in seeing a rope falsely as a snake — the snake wholly absent (wholly-imagined), the rope a condition-born real fact (other-dependent); break the snake, do not dismiss the rope.
The perfectly-accomplished: "upon it, ever-apart from the prior nature." It is nowhere else — "upon that very other-dependent, ever-apart from the prior wholly-imagined, the suchness revealed by the two emptinesses as its nature" — right upon this rope of the other-dependent, apart from the grasped snake, the suchness revealed by self- and dharma-emptiness is the perfectly-accomplished. The commentator pins "upon it" and "ever-apart": upon it shows the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent "not-identical-not-apart," ever-apart shows the wholly-imagined "eternally non-existent to reason." One not-apart, one ever-apart, and the structure stands: the other-dependent as basis · the wholly-imagined as what-is-departed · the perfectly-accomplished as what-is-revealed.
The masters leave a fork of the same source as verse 17 (side by side, no verdict): do the seeing-and-image parts count as other-dependent or wholly-imagined? Sthiramati judges the two parts "existent-to-feeling, non-existent-to-reason," wholly-imagined; Dharmapāla judges them "born of conditions, hence also other-dependent" — the "one-part／four-part" dispute recurring, the CWL Xuanzang transmitted taking Dharmapāla as correct. The shared line: Consciousness-Only breaks the snake, not the rope, still less the reality always on it. The next verse: the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent — one or different?
原典＝玄奘譯《唯識三十論頌》世親菩薩造（T31n1586）。釋論揉頌見《成唯識論》（T31n1585）。
本頌（玄奘 T31n1586）〔T31n1586 0061a16–17〕
依他起自性，分別緣所生。
圓成實於彼，常遠離前性。
偈二十一明三性之依他起性與圓成實性（三性之二、三）：依他起自性＝虛妄分別（眾緣）所生（識變·非無）；圓成實性＝「於彼」依他起上，「常遠離」前（遍計所執）性，二空所顯之真如。 科判位：唯識相 · 廣辯 · 三性（偈二十–二十二）→ 依他起·圓成實（偈二十一）。承前偈遍計所執（無），此立依他（非無）與圓成（真如）。
The canonical text stands in Chinese only. This edition renders the essence, the plain reading, the exposition and the apparatus into English — never the sūtra itself. Switch to 漢讀本 or 並行雙語 above to read it.
本頌
依他起自性，分別緣所生。 圓成實於彼，常遠離前性。
白話
上一首講了三性的第一個——遍計所執（你以為有、其實全無）。這一首接著講後兩個：依他起、圓成實。
先講依他起：
- 「依他起自性」：「依他」就是『依靠其他眾緣』。這個自性不是自己單獨有的，是依著種種緣才生起的。
- 「分別緣所生」：具體說，它是「虛妄分別」這些緣所生起的——也就是識自己變現的那些見分、相分。《成唯識論》說它「託緣生，此性非無」：靠緣生起，所以不能說它沒有。
注意這跟遍計所執的差別：遍計所執是「都無所有」（純妄、全無）；依他起卻是「非無」（緣生而有）。打個比方，把繩看成蛇——「蛇」是遍計（全無），「繩」是依他（緣生，不能說無）。
再講圓成實：
- 「圓成實於彼」：「於彼」就是『在那個依他起上』。圓成實不在別處，就在依他起這條繩上。
- 「常遠離前性」：「前性」指前面的遍計所執。在依他起上，「常遠離」掉那個妄執的遍計（蛇），所顯出來的——《成唯識論》說是『二空（我空、法空）所顯的真如』，這就是圓成實。
《成唯識論》把「於彼」「常遠離」兩個字拈得很細：「於彼」是說圓成實與依他起「不即不離」（不是同一個、也不相離，就在依他上顯）；「常遠離」是說所妄執的能取所取，「理恒非有」（道理上永遠沒有）。
（所以三性是一條線：依他起（繩）是所依、遍計所執（蛇）是要遠離的、圓成實（看清是繩、本無蛇的那個真實）是所顯。下一首再說圓成與依他到底是「一」還是「異」。）
The verse
依他起自性，分別緣所生。 圓成實於彼，常遠離前性。
the other-dependent nature is born of discrimination-conditions; the perfectly-accomplished nature, upon it, is ever-apart from the prior nature.
In plain words
The last verse stated the first of the three natures — the wholly-imagined (you suppose it exists, but it utterly does not). This verse takes up the other two: the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished.
First the other-dependent:
- "The other-dependent nature": "other-dependent" means "depending on other conditions." This nature is not had on its own; it arises only depending on various conditions.
- "Born of discrimination-conditions": specifically, it arises from the conditions of "false discrimination" — that is, the seeing-parts and image-parts consciousness itself transforms-into. The CWL says it "arises upon conditions, this nature not absent": arising by conditions, it cannot be called absent.
Note the difference from the wholly-imagined: the wholly-imagined is "utterly non-existent" (pure falsity, wholly absent), but the other-dependent is "not absent" (condition-born, existent). To use the figure: seeing a rope as a snake — the "snake" is the wholly-imagined (wholly absent), the "rope" is the other-dependent (condition-born, not to be called absent).
Then the perfectly-accomplished:
- "The perfectly-accomplished, upon it": "upon it" means "upon that other-dependent." The perfectly-accomplished is nowhere else — it is right upon this rope of the other-dependent.
- "Ever-apart from the prior nature": "the prior nature" means the wholly-imagined just stated. Upon the other-dependent, "ever-apart" from that falsely-grasped wholly-imagined (the snake), what is revealed — the CWL says "the suchness revealed by the two emptinesses (self-emptiness, dharma-emptiness)" — this is the perfectly-accomplished.
The CWL pins the two phrases "upon it" and "ever-apart" finely: "upon it" says the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are "not-identical-not-apart" (not one and the same, nor separate — revealed right upon the other-dependent); "ever-apart" says the grasped grasper-grasped is "eternally non-existent to reason."
(So the three natures are one line: the other-dependent (rope) is the basis, the wholly-imagined (snake) is what must be departed, and the perfectly-accomplished (the reality of seeing it is a rope, originally with no snake) is what is revealed. The next verse states whether the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are "one" or "different.")
遍計既「都無所有」，會不會落空
上一首把遍計所執判作「都無所有」。這裡立刻有人擔心：那不就成了惡取空、撥無一切？《成唯識論》早防著這一步——三性不是只破不立。破掉遍計（純妄）之後，還有兩性要立：依他起「非無」、圓成實「真實」。這一首就把這兩性立起來，正是要在「無」之外，把該有的兩層穩穩接住。
依他起：託緣而生，此性非無
本頌「依他起自性，分別緣所生」，《成唯識論》釋得斬截：「二所依體，實託緣生，此性非無，名依他起，虛妄分別緣所生故」（〔T31n1585 0046a18–20〕）。「依他」者，依靠眾緣；它不是自己單獨成立，而是虛妄分別這些緣所生起的——也就是識自變的見相二分等。關鍵在「此性非無」四字：依他起雖非實有自性，卻是緣生而有，不能像遍計那樣判作純無。
這一筆，把三性的尺度分清了：遍計唯無、依他非無。 你對著識變硬安一個心外實境，那是遍計（無）；可識變這件事本身、見相二分這套依緣而起的作用，是依他（非無）。就像把繩錯看成蛇——蛇全無（遍計），繩卻是緣生的實事（依他），不能因為破了蛇，就連繩也一併撥掉。
圓成實：就在依他這條繩上，遠離了蛇
那真實的圓成實在哪？本頌答得極要緊：「圓成實於彼，常遠離前性」。《成唯識論》拈這兩語拈得極準：
「圓成實」者，「二空所顯圓滿成就，諸法實性」（〔T31n1585 0046b10–11〕）。而它的所在，是「此即於彼依他起上，常遠離前遍計所執，二空所顯真如為性」（〔0046b13–15〕）——圓成實不在依他之外另有一物，就在「彼」依他起這條繩上，「常遠離」掉所妄執的遍計（蛇），我空法空所顯的真如，便是圓成實。
論主把「於彼」「常遠離」分得清清楚楚：「『於彼』言：顯圓成實與依他起，不即不離；『常遠離』言：顯妄所執能、所取性，理恒非有」（〔0046b15–17〕）。一個「於彼」，定住圓成不離依他（就在這條繩上顯，不是別處另有真如）；一個「常遠離」，定住圓成永離遍計（蛇在理上永遠沒有）。一不離、一永離，三性的結構就立穩了：依他為所依、遍計為所離、圓成為所顯。
一道同源的深岔：見相二分，算依他還是遍計
這裡古德留下一道與偈十七同源的深岔（只並陳、不判是非）：識變的見相二分，到底算依他、還是算遍計？安慧說：見、相二分「情有理無，此相說為遍計所執」（〔T31n1585 0046a15–17〕）——只有識體自證分是依他，二分是妄似而起、體無。護法則說：「一切心及心所，由熏習力所變二分，從緣生故，亦依他起」（〔0046a21–22〕）——二分既從緣生，便也是依他（有體用），唯所執的實我法才屬遍計。這正是『一分／四分』之諍在三性段的再現；玄奘所傳《成唯識論》以護法「二分依他」為正義，這也是本書的骨幹。
無論二分歸屬如何分判，這一首立穩的那一句是共許的：繩非蛇（遍計無），卻也不是無（依他非無）；而真實的圓成，不在別處，就在這條繩上、遠離了蛇之處顯出來。 唯識破境，破的是蛇，不是繩，更不是繩上那一段本來如是的真實。下一首接著問：這真實（圓成）與那繩（依他），究竟是一還是異？
The wholly-imagined being "utterly non-existent" — does it not fall into emptiness?
The last verse judged the wholly-imagined "utterly non-existent." At once one might fear: does this not become a nihilistic clinging-to-emptiness, a denial of everything? The CWL guards against this step in advance — the three natures do not only negate, they also establish. Having broken the wholly-imagined (pure falsity), two natures remain to be established: the other-dependent "not absent," the perfectly-accomplished "real." This verse establishes these two, precisely to catch, beyond "absence," the two layers that should hold.
The other-dependent: arising upon conditions, this nature not absent
The root verse "the other-dependent nature, born of discrimination-conditions," the CWL glosses decisively: "the two substrate-substances truly arise upon conditions, this nature not absent, named the other-dependent, for it is born of false-discrimination conditions" (〔T31n1585 0046a18–20〕). "Other-Dependent" means depending on conditions; it does not stand on its own but arises from the conditions of false discrimination — that is, the seeing-and-image parts consciousness itself transforms-into. The crux is the four words "this nature not absent": the other-dependent, though without a real own-nature, is condition-born and existent, and cannot, like the wholly-imagined, be judged pure absence.
This stroke clarifies the measure of the three natures: the wholly-imagined is only absent; the other-dependent is not absent. Facing the consciousness-transformation, you insist on positing a real external object — that is the wholly-imagined (absent); but the very fact of consciousness-transformation, the condition-arisen functioning of the seeing-and-image parts, is the other-dependent (not absent). As in seeing a rope falsely as a snake — the snake is wholly absent (the wholly-imagined), but the rope is a condition-born real fact (the other-dependent); one cannot, because the snake is broken, dismiss the rope along with it.
The perfectly-accomplished: right upon this rope of the other-dependent, apart from the snake
So where is the real, the perfectly-accomplished? The root verse answers most pointedly: "the perfectly-accomplished, upon it, is ever-apart from the prior nature." The CWL pins these two phrases with great precision:
The "perfectly-accomplished" is "the perfectly-accomplished real nature of dharmas, revealed by the two emptinesses" (〔T31n1585 0046b10–11〕). And its place is "upon that very other-dependent, ever-apart from the prior wholly-imagined, the suchness revealed by the two emptinesses as its nature" (〔0046b13–15〕) — the perfectly-accomplished is not a thing apart from the other-dependent, but right upon "that" rope of the other-dependent; "ever-apart" from the falsely-grasped wholly-imagined (the snake), the suchness revealed by self-emptiness and dharma-emptiness is the perfectly-accomplished.
The commentator divides "upon it" and "ever-apart" cleanly: "'upon it' shows the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are not-identical-not-apart; 'ever-apart' shows the grasped grasper-grasped is eternally non-existent to reason" (〔0046b15–17〕). The one "upon it" fixes the perfectly-accomplished as not apart from the other-dependent (revealed right upon this rope, not a suchness elsewhere); the one "ever-apart" fixes the perfectly-accomplished as eternally apart from the wholly-imagined (the snake eternally non-existent to reason). One not-apart, one ever-apart, and the three-nature structure stands firm: the other-dependent as basis · the wholly-imagined as what-is-departed · the perfectly-accomplished as what-is-revealed.
A fork of the same source: do the seeing-and-image parts count as other-dependent or wholly-imagined?
Here the ancient masters leave a deep fork sharing a source with verse 17 (set side by side, no verdict): the seeing-and-image parts of the consciousness-transformation — do they count as other-dependent or wholly-imagined? Sthiramati says: the seeing-and-image parts are "existent-to-feeling, non-existent-to-reason, this mark is called the wholly-imagined" (〔T31n1585 0046a15–17〕) — only the consciousness-substance, the self-witnessing part, is other-dependent; the two parts falsely seem to arise and are without substance. Dharmapāla says: "all minds and mental factors, the two parts transformed by the force of perfuming, are born of conditions, hence also dependently arisen" (〔0046a21–22〕) — the two parts, being born of conditions, are also other-dependent (having substance-and-function), and only the grasped real self-and-dharmas belong to the wholly-imagined. This is the "one-part／four-part" dispute recurring in the three-nature section; the CWL Xuanzang transmitted takes Dharmapāla's "the two parts are other-dependent" as correct, and this is the backbone of this book.
However the parts are assigned, the line this verse establishes is shared: the rope is not a snake (the wholly-imagined absent), yet neither is it nothing (the other-dependent not absent); and the real perfectly-accomplished is nowhere else but right upon this rope, revealed where the snake is departed. Consciousness-Only breaks the object — it breaks the snake, not the rope, still less the stretch of reality on the rope that was always thus. The next verse asks: this reality (the perfectly-accomplished) and that rope (the other-dependent) — are they one or different?
考據Apparatus
本偈明三性之依他起（分別緣所生·非無）與圓成實（依他上遠離遍計·二空所顯真如）。其釋論《成唯識論》卷八釋之。見相二分屬依他抑遍計，為安慧／護法之深岐解（與偈十七同源）。
一、科判定位
| 科判系統 | 此偈之位 |
|---|---|
| 護法略標（玄奘 T1586 頌本卷首·主錨） | 唯識相 → 廣辯 → 三性（偈二十–二十二）→ 依他起·圓成實（偈二十一）。〔T31n1586 0060a21–24〕 |
| 成唯識論 釋文科段 | 依他起（次所遍計·分別緣所生）→ 圓成實（二空所顯·於依他上遠離遍計）（卷八） |
前偈立遍計所執（情有理無·無），此偈立依他起（緣生·非無）與圓成實（二空所顯真如）。三性之中：遍計唯無·依他非無·圓成真實。
二、古漢義理平行
《轉識論》T1587 僅作古漢義理平行，不作世親造、同本異譯或逐頌校本。
| 文本 | 逐字 | 出處 |
|---|---|---|
| 玄奘 T1586（本頌） | 依他起自性，分別緣所生。圓成實於彼，常遠離前性。 | T31n1586 0061a16–17 |
| 成唯識論 T1585（揉頌） | 「依他起自性，分別緣所生。圓成實於彼，常遠離前性。」 | T31n1585 0045c10–11 |
| 真諦《轉識論》T1587 | 能即依他性……此境識俱泯即是實性，實性即是阿摩羅識。 | T31n1587 0062c12·0062c18–19 |
義理平行所見：玄奘本頌與成唯識論揉頌全同。真諦《轉識論》判『能分別＝識＝依他性』；本偈則說依他起「分別緣所生」——前者判能分別者的性類，後者說依他起的生因，只可作同圍繞「分別／依他」的義理平行，不可視為同句異譯。T1587 又直說「境識俱泯即是實性，實性即是阿摩羅識」〔0062c18–19〕，但此處未直稱「第九識」；窺基則明斥古師別立阿摩羅為第九，判其為轉因第八所得之無垢識〔T43n1830 0344c10–13〕。兩套術語只作功能對讀，不據此建立同本、譯名承改或圓成實與阿摩羅的同義關係。
三、唯識義之釋據（眼）
（一） 依他起·分別緣所生——〔T31n1585 0046a10–20〕：
次所遍計自性云何？《攝大乘》說是依他起，遍計心等所緣緣故。〔T31n1585 0046a10–11〕
二所依體，實託緣生，此性非無，名依他起，虛妄分別緣所生故。〔T31n1585 0046a18–19〕
（二） 圓成實·二空所顯真如——〔T31n1585 0046b10–15〕：
二空所顯圓滿成就，諸法實性，名圓成實。〔T31n1585 0046b10〕
此即於彼依他起上，常遠離前遍計所執，二空所顯真如為性。〔T31n1585 0046b13–14〕
（三） 「於彼」不即不離·「常遠離」理恒非有——〔T31n1585 0046b15–17〕：
說「於彼」言：顯圓成實與依他起，不即不離；「常遠離」言：顯妄所執能、所取性，理恒非有。〔T31n1585 0046b14–16〕
→ 依他起＝虛妄分別（眾緣）所生之識變（見相二分等），託緣而生·此性非無——非如遍計之純無。圓成實＝即於此依他起上、常遠離所執之遍計（能所取），二空（我空法空）所顯之真如為性。「於彼」顯圓成不離依他（即依他之實性）·「常遠離」顯遍計理恒非有。 → 承衍：本論 v.22（圓成依他·非異非不異）· v.24（三無性·勝義無性）· v.25（唯識實性·圓成）· v.29（轉依·遠離遍計轉得圓成）。
四、諸家異釋（古德·標宗·深岐解）
見相二分『屬依他抑屬遍計』之辯（與偈十七同源·安慧／護法）——《成唯識論》並陳：
有義：三界心及心所……雖各體一，而似二生：謂見、相分，即能、所取。如是二分，情有理無，此相說為遍計所執。〔T31n1585 0046a15–18〕
有義：一切心及心所，由熏習力所變二分，從緣生故，亦依他起。〔T31n1585 0046a21–22〕
→ 安慧義：見相二分「情有理無」，屬遍計所執（唯識體自證分依他）；護法義：見相二分「從緣生故，亦依他起」（有體用），唯所執實我法屬遍計。此即偈十七『一分／四分』之岐 於三性段之再現——二師判二分歸依他抑歸遍計，分途在此。〔僅徵引·古德異釋並陳，不判一是一非；玄奘所傳《成唯識論》以護法二分依他為正義。〕
五、術語
| 漢 | 古德傳梵（羅馬字·發音輔助） | 唯識精確義 |
|---|---|---|
| 依他起性 | paratantra-svabhāva | 虛妄分別眾緣所生之識變；託緣生·此性非無〔0046a18〕 |
| 圓成實性 | pariniṣpanna-svabhāva | 二空所顯·於依他上遠離遍計之真如；圓滿成就諸法實性〔0046b10〕 |
| 二空 | — | 我空·法空；圓成實所顯之真如為其所顯〔0046b10〕 |
| 不即不離 | — | 圓成實與依他起之關係（於彼依他上而顯）〔0046b15〕 |
六、譬喻·修辭
本偈圓成依他之喻體（幻事等八喻），論主置於次偈（v.22）廣陳，此偈但立依他「非無」、圓成「真如」之分判。修辭在「於彼」「常遠離」二語之精拈——「於彼」一字定圓成不離依他、「常遠離」三字定圓成永離遍計，一不離一永離，正顯三性『依他為所依、遍計為所離、圓成為所顯』之結構（八喻詳 v.22）。
七、互讀
- 三十頌 v.20：遍計所執性·自性無所有——本偈依他（非無）·圓成（真如）正與前偈遍計（無）合成三性。
- 三十頌 v.17：識轉變·見相二分——本偈依他起即彼識變；二分歸依他抑遍計之岐同源。
- 三十頌 v.22：圓成依他·非異非不異——本偈圓成「於彼依他」之關係，次偈以「法與法性」明之。
- 三十頌 v.25·v.29：唯識實性·轉依——本偈圓成實即唯識實性所本；轉依即遠離遍計、轉得圓成。
- 攝大乘論：依他起·所知相——本偈「《攝大乘》說是依他起」所引之本論。
八、校本定位
- 玄奘 T1586（底本）：偈二十一〔T31n1586 0061a16–17〕。
- 成唯識論 T1585（釋論骨幹·卷八）：依他·《攝大乘》所緣緣〔0046a10–11〕· 依他定義託緣生非無〔0046a18–20〕· 見相二分依他／遍計二說〔0046a15–24〕· 圓成二空所顯〔0046b10–11〕· 於依他上遠離遍計〔0046b13–15〕· 不即不離·常遠離〔0046b15–17〕。
- 真諦《轉識論》T1587（古漢義理平行）：能即依他性〔0062c12〕· 實性即阿摩羅識〔0062c18–19〕。
- 窺基《成唯識論述記》T1830：依他·圓成·見相二分之疏（卷八）；本頌專釋段〔T43n1830 0543c07–0546b07〕· 阿摩羅非別立第九、為轉因第八所得之無垢識〔0344c10–13〕。
This verse states the other-dependent nature (born of discrimination-conditions · not absent) and the perfectly-accomplished nature (the suchness revealed by the two emptinesses, upon the other-dependent, ever-apart from the wholly-imagined). The CWL fascicle 8 expounds it. Whether the seeing-and-image parts belong to the other-dependent or the wholly-imagined is the deep Sthiramati／Dharmapāla fork (sharing a source with verse 17).
1 · Sectioning (科判定位)
| Scheme | Placement of this verse |
|---|---|
| 護法 brief statement (head of T1586 verse-text · primary anchor) | Characteristic of Consciousness-Only → detailed exposition → the three natures (verses 20–22) → the other-dependent · the perfectly-accomplished (verse 21). 〔T31n1586 0060a21–24〕 |
| CWL exegetical段 | the other-dependent (the next wholly-imagined · born of discrimination-conditions) → the perfectly-accomplished (revealed by the two emptinesses · upon the other-dependent, apart from the wholly-imagined) (fasc. 8) |
The previous verse established the wholly-imagined (existent-to-feeling, non-existent-to-reason · absent); this verse establishes the other-dependent (condition-born · not absent) and the perfectly-accomplished (the suchness revealed by the two emptinesses). Among the three natures: the wholly-imagined is only absent · the other-dependent is not absent · the perfectly-accomplished is real.
2 · Ancient-Chinese thematic parallels (古漢義理平行)
T1587 is used only as an ancient-Chinese thematic parallel, not as evidence of Vasubandhu authorship, a common source text, or a verse-by-verse variant recension.
| Text | Verbatim | Loc |
|---|---|---|
| Xuanzang T1586 (root verse) | 依他起自性，分別緣所生。圓成實於彼，常遠離前性。 | T31n1586 0061a16–17 |
| 成唯識論 T1585 (redacted verse) | 「依他起自性，分別緣所生。圓成實於彼，常遠離前性。」 | T31n1585 0045c10–11 |
| Paramārtha 《轉識論》 T1587 | 能即依他性……此境識俱泯即是實性，實性即是阿摩羅識。 | T31n1587 0062c12·0062c18–19 |
What the thematic parallel shows: Xuanzang's root verse and the CWL redaction are wholly identical. Paramārtha's 《轉識論》 states "the discriminating ＝ consciousness ＝ the other-dependent nature," whereas this verse says the other-dependent is "born of discrimination-conditions." The former classifies the discriminating subject; the latter states the other-dependent's condition of arising. They are thematic parallels around discrimination and the other-dependent, not variant renderings of one sentence. T1587 also states directly that, when object and consciousness are both dissolved, "this is the real nature; the real nature is the amala consciousness" 〔0062c18–19〕, but does not there call it a "ninth consciousness." Kuiji explicitly rejects the old masters' separate ninth and treats amala as the undefiled consciousness obtained by transforming the causal eighth 〔T43n1830 0344c10–13〕. These terminologies may be compared functionally, but they do not establish a common source, a history of Xuanzang revising the terms, or an identity between the perfectly-accomplished and amala.
3 · The doctrinal grounding in the commentary (釋據 · the eye)
(i) The other-dependent · born of discrimination-conditions — 〔T31n1585 0046a10–20〕:
次所遍計自性云何？《攝大乘》說是依他起，遍計心等所緣緣故。〔T31n1585 0046a10–11〕
二所依體，實託緣生，此性非無，名依他起，虛妄分別緣所生故。〔T31n1585 0046a18–19〕
(ii) The perfectly-accomplished · the suchness revealed by the two emptinesses — 〔T31n1585 0046b10–15〕:
二空所顯圓滿成就，諸法實性，名圓成實。〔T31n1585 0046b10〕
此即於彼依他起上，常遠離前遍計所執，二空所顯真如為性。〔T31n1585 0046b13–14〕
(iii) "Upon it" not-identical-not-apart · "ever-apart" eternally non-existent to reason — 〔T31n1585 0046b15–17〕:
說「於彼」言：顯圓成實與依他起，不即不離；「常遠離」言：顯妄所執能、所取性，理恒非有。〔T31n1585 0046b14–16〕
→ The other-dependent ＝ the consciousness-transformation (seeing-and-image parts etc.) born of the false-discrimination conditions; arising upon conditions · this nature not absent — not the pure absence of the wholly-imagined. The perfectly-accomplished ＝ upon this very other-dependent, ever-apart from the grasped wholly-imagined (the grasper-grasped), the suchness revealed by the two emptinesses (self-emptiness, dharma-emptiness) as its nature. "Upon it" shows the perfectly-accomplished is not apart from the other-dependent (it is the other-dependent's real nature); "ever-apart" shows the wholly-imagined is eternally non-existent to reason. → Further connections: this treatise v.22 (the perfectly-accomplished and other-dependent · neither different nor non-different) · v.24 (the three non-natures · the ultimate-meaning-no-nature) · v.25 (the Consciousness-Only-reality · the perfectly-accomplished) · v.29 (the transformation-of-basis · apart from the wholly-imagined, attaining the perfectly-accomplished).
4 · Variant readings of the masters (諸家異釋 · standard-setting · the deep fork)
Whether the seeing-and-image parts belong to the other-dependent or to the wholly-imagined (sharing a source with verse 17 · Sthiramati／Dharmapāla) — the CWL lays out:
有義：三界心及心所……雖各體一，而似二生：謂見、相分，即能、所取。如是二分，情有理無，此相說為遍計所執。〔T31n1585 0046a15–18〕
有義：一切心及心所，由熏習力所變二分，從緣生故，亦依他起。〔T31n1585 0046a21–22〕
→ Sthiramati's sense: the seeing-and-image parts are "existent-to-feeling, non-existent-to-reason," belonging to the wholly-imagined (only the consciousness-substance, the self-witnessing part, is other-dependent); Dharmapāla's sense: the seeing-and-image parts "are born of conditions, hence also dependently arisen" (having substance-and-function), only the grasped real self-and-dharmas belonging to the wholly-imagined. This is the verse-17 "one-part／four-part" fork recurring in the three-nature section — the two masters part ways over whether the two parts fall under the other-dependent or the wholly-imagined. 〔Citation only · the masters' variant readings set side by side, with no verdict of right or wrong; the CWL Xuanzang transmitted takes Dharmapāla's "the two parts are other-dependent" as correct.〕
5 · Terminology (術語)
| 漢 | Masters'-transmitted Skt. (pronunciation aid) | Yogācāra precise sense |
|---|---|---|
| 依他起性 | paratantra-svabhāva | the consciousness-transformation born of the false-discrimination conditions; arising upon conditions · this nature not absent 〔0046a18〕 |
| 圓成實性 | pariniṣpanna-svabhāva | the suchness revealed by the two emptinesses · upon the other-dependent, apart from the wholly-imagined; the perfectly-accomplished real nature of dharmas 〔0046b10〕 |
| 二空 | — | self-emptiness · dharma-emptiness; the perfectly-accomplished's revealed suchness is what they reveal 〔0046b10〕 |
| 不即不離 | — | the relation of the perfectly-accomplished to the other-dependent (revealed upon the other-dependent) 〔0046b15〕 |
6 · Simile and rhetoric (譬喻·修辭)
This verse's simile-vehicle for the perfectly-accomplished and other-dependent (the eight similes, illusion etc.) the commentator sets out at length in the next verse (v.22); this verse only establishes the other-dependent's "not absent" and the perfectly-accomplished's "suchness." The rhetoric lies in the precise pinning of "upon it" and "ever-apart" — the single "upon it" fixes the perfectly-accomplished as not apart from the other-dependent, the triple "ever-apart" fixes the perfectly-accomplished as eternally apart from the wholly-imagined; one not-apart, one ever-apart, just showing the three-nature structure of "the other-dependent as basis · the wholly-imagined as what-is-departed · the perfectly-accomplished as what-is-revealed" (the eight similes detailed at v.22).
7 · Cross-readings (互讀)
- 三十頌 v.20: the wholly-imagined nature · the nature utterly non-existent — this verse's other-dependent (not absent) · perfectly-accomplished (suchness) compose the three natures with the previous verse's wholly-imagined (absent).
- 三十頌 v.17: consciousness-transformation · the seeing-and-image parts — this verse's other-dependent is that consciousness-transformation; the fork over whether the two parts belong to the other-dependent or wholly-imagined shares a source.
- 三十頌 v.22: the perfectly-accomplished and other-dependent · neither different nor non-different — this verse's perfectly-accomplished "upon the other-dependent" relation, the next verse states by "dharma and dharma-nature."
- 三十頌 v.25·v.29: the Consciousness-Only-reality · the transformation-of-basis — this verse's perfectly-accomplished is the ground of the Consciousness-Only-reality; the transformation-of-basis is to depart the wholly-imagined and attain the perfectly-accomplished.
- 攝大乘論 (Mahāyānasaṃgraha): the other-dependent · the mark-of-the-knowable — the root text of this verse's cited "the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says it is the other-dependent."
8 · Manuscript loci (校本定位)
- Xuanzang T1586 (base): verse 21 〔T31n1586 0061a16–17〕.
- 成唯識論 T1585 (commentary backbone · fasc. 8): the other-dependent · the Mahāyānasaṃgraha's object-condition 〔0046a10–11〕 · the other-dependent's definition, condition-born, not absent 〔0046a18–20〕 · two positions on the seeing-and-image parts, other-dependent／wholly-imagined 〔0046a15–24〕 · the perfectly-accomplished, revealed by the two emptinesses 〔0046b10–11〕 · upon the other-dependent, apart from the wholly-imagined 〔0046b13–15〕 · not-identical-not-apart · ever-apart 〔0046b15–17〕.
- 真諦《轉識論》 T1587 (ancient-Chinese thematic parallel): the discriminating ＝ the other-dependent nature 〔0062c12〕 · the real nature ＝ the amala consciousness 〔0062c18–19〕.
- 窺基《成唯識論述記》 T1830: gloss on the other-dependent · the perfectly-accomplished · the seeing-and-image parts (fasc. 8); verse-specific section 〔T43n1830 0543c07–0546b07〕 · amala not a separate ninth but the undefiled consciousness obtained by transforming the causal eighth 〔0344c10–13〕.